Talk:Function (biology)

Expanding scope

Perhaps this could be about both form and function? It would widen the scope a little. Since the two are equally important though perhaps we should move it to the name linked above? Richard001 06:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Function is a vitally important notion in biology, and it slightly beggars belief that this short essay is all that the world has to say about it. Merging this already important topic with form would be to diminish its importance further.

Adding further sources

I agree. Function is a very important topic in biology. It perhaps says a lot about the dominance of population genetics in the modern theory of evolution (that all but ignores function) that function has received such a small amount of attention.

For example: the definition of function in biology is very much an open question. It is not resolved. This article reads like the problem is solved. It doesn't even mention Millikan's etiological concept of function, or Cummins Causal role functions, arguably the two leading theories on biological function definition.

Again, part of the problem is perhaps that, like life, or biological complexity, function is one of those concepts that is very difficult to pin down, even though we have an innate understanding of it. As such, discussion of biological function is still very much at the stage of philosophy rather than hard science. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.40.193.5 (talk) 13:41, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Function and Structure

this page states that it would be difficult to determine the "function" of an enzyme from its structure. I'd like to see a citation for this. This statement is, in fact, probably wrong. The biological community is actually rather good at inferring the function of an enzyme from its structure. Dopeytaylor (talk) 18:00, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Status of page

The "reads like an essay" status of this page needs to be addressed (i.e. remedied).Dopeytaylor (talk) 18:03, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Evolutionary concept

• An editor is attempting to make this article some sort of disambiguation page with multiple meanings, but in biology, function is a core concept, and is directly related to evolution by natural selection: the function of almost anything is understood by the selection pressure driving it. In In each case, that function is to do or achieve something (hence the teleological language question, discussed in the article), and in each case that implies some mechanism of action, but it is wrong (indeed absurd) to try to make another meaning of the term from the fact of mechanism. In Dobzhansky's ringing words, "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution". Function is exactly about that making sense. Nothing else will do. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:14, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
  • You are right, but I think that we could insert a section about the traditional concept of function used in phisyology and philosophy ("The role, effect or mode of action of the parts of an organism, especially those which contribute to their maintenance and reproduction", [1]). It has a teleological background of course, but it has also a heuristic and historic value.Zorahia (talk) 20:38, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for agreeing that I'm correct, Zorahia. That makes it difficult to understand why you are trying a) to edit-war your view into the article, which is wrong, b) to make a distinction between function in physiology and evolutionary function, which is also wrong, and c) you have utterly garbled the structure of the article, which makes no sense: what do you think you are doing inserting Teleology under "In physiology"? - it's utterly absurd: the issue of teleology in biology arises as an argument about the meaning of function in evolutionary terms. The so-called physiological function is exactly what has evolved. In short, you are making a complete and illogical mess of the article, and I'd ask you to revert your additions at once. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:50, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I have to agree with Chiswick Chap. The recent changes introduced some serious conceptual errors, exactly the sort of conflation of concepts that we fight mightily to combat in students. I haven't put it back exactly the way it was because I was working on one paragraph at a time, but I would support doing so. The only hesitation that I have now is that the lead section of the version from before the recent changes was difficult to understand, so I would suggest leaving it as one simple sentence, and recreating the remainder of the original text under some sort of sub-heading. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 11:40, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Later: I like the current two-sentence lead, it is accessible to a general reader. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 21:24, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the structure of the article, as it is right now, is poor. Further, it's a difficult area to write well about. Consider this bit: "For example, the function of chlorophyll in a plant is to capture the energy of sunlight for photosynthesis, which contributes to evolutionary success." So why don't all plants have chlorophyll? Why are there parasitic plants without chlorophyll? It's undeniable that (a) the function of chlorophyll is to capture the energy of sunlight for photosynthesis and (b) the survival and reproductive success of plants that rely on photosynthesis for their energy needs is dependent on chlorophyll. But the caveat that I introduced, "that rely on photosynthesis for their energy needs", is essential. The problem, understood perhaps most clearly by system biologists, is that "Living systems are dynamic and complex, and their behavior may be hard to predict from the properties of individual parts."[2] Or in this context, evolutionary success is hard to predict from the functions of individual parts. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:58, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I think that the distinction may be pertinent, we clearly use function in two ways.

If my reasonings are correct, the pre-evolutionary concept of function (e.g., [3]) envolves Aristotle's both efficient cause (mechanism, role, mode of action) and final cause (an immediate effect, but not necessarelly implying a purpose). So, in this sense, "the function of lungs is respiration, or gas exchange" - respiration being understood as a mechanism ("the process of respiration takes place in lungs with inhalation and exhalation...") or an effect ("the activities of the lungs - contraction, expansion - result in the process of respiration"). It doesn't mean necessarelly that "lungs were planned for respiration" - nor that "the function of lungs (in the pre-evolutionary sense) is/was adaptation of terrestrial animals".

Under evolutionary theory, function is viewed in terms of final cause also, but in a non-immediate sense, related to another effect, the adaptation - the "function of lungs in the past was to increase the adaptive value of animals in the transition from aquatic to terrestrial habitats" (or "the appearance of lungs in animals allowed them to live in terrestrial habitats", but it not necessarelly means "lungs were made for adaptation of terrestrial animals").

Anyway, the use of the pre-evolutionary concept of function is still widespread (see nervous system, circulatory system) and, in my view, it should not merely be banned or labelled as wrong, but understood as don't implying purpose. Zorahia (talk) 17:37, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Whether or not you are 2,300 years behind the times, the article already mentions Aristotle twice, and effectively places function as one of his four causes. I'd have thought that was more than sufficient; we can leave "final cause" out of it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:45, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I just imagined that you intended to delete the pre-evolutionary sense section, sorry. But in my view, a deeper philosophical and historical treatment of the question of function in biology is wellcome (we could request this to someone more familiarized to the question). Zorahia (talk) 18:51, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia for the general reader, not a philosophy website, so concepts must be presented simply. And unlike Citizendium, we don't generally try to get "experts" to write articles. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:19, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Ok Zorahia (talk) 21:18, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Function (biology). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130629204107/http://biology.clc.uc.edu/courses/bio104/photosyn.htm to http://biology.clc.uc.edu/courses/bio104/photosyn.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:40, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Function (biology)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dunkleosteus77 (talk · contribs) 03:25, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks for taking this on. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:28, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Dunkleosteus77

• I don't think refs no. 2, 3, 5, 6, 16, 17, and 20 are formatted right   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:25, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Formatted.

• Why do you mention philosophy of biology in the In evolutionary biology when you already have the In philosophy of biology section?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:25, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

So as to form a complete list; I've tweaked the wording to show that's another section.

• "...which contributes to evolutionary success," doesn't have a ref   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:25, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Biologists take this as axiomatic, but I've reffed it in belt-and-braces style.

• I feel like instead of saying, "More recent defenses of causal-role theory of function include..." and, "Other defenses of selected effect theories include..." you could incorporate what they said into the text. Those sentences themselves seem unnecessary   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:25, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree. Removed, the remaining text already says what they said.

• Typo, "...said to be the function of zebra strikes"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:25, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Fixed.

• I think you rely a little too much on wikilinks to explain things in some places. I know you wikilinked it but could you briefly explain what the Cuvier–Geoffroy debate is? I don't understand the second sentence of Anatomy   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:25, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Explained. There isn't an Anatomy section; I've clarified the second sentence of Adaptation in case that was what you intended.